I hate this brand! The effect of negative engagement on self-expression word-of-mouth SANDRA MARIA CORREIA LOUREIRO

Purpose: The aim of this ongoing research is to explore the effect of being negatively engaged to online brand communities on the negative self-express e-word-of-mouth.

Background Engagement could also have a dark side, which includes co-destruction of brand value, or impoverishment of value by customers and providers (Dolan, Conduit, and Fahy, 2016). Such damaging behavior can be triggered by consumers’ perceived reputation of the brand, self-confidence, product involvement, proximity of others and attitudes to the business in general, and perceived worthiness of complaining (Lau and Ng, 2001). Yet, the action of participating in co-destruction of brand value can also be represented by individuals who are highly motivated in damaging the perception one has of a specific brand, its products or, even, its business. These individuals – consumers or non-consumers of a specific brand – do not only share negative feelings and messages toward a specific brand, but also become engaged in doing so – thus opening ways for the study and examination of a new concept in the marketing literature (Juric, Smith, and Wilks, 2016).

Since consumption-focused self-expression WOM has no desire to promote the brand, this type of word-of-mouth communication is sometimes addressed as one of the most influential and credible types of consumer-generated communications with brands (Saenger, Thomas, and Johnson, 2013). We argue that the fact that a consumer is negatively engaged with an online brand community may influence his/her self-expression word-of-mouth and we propose the following hypothesis: H1: The dimensions of online community engagement are related to members’ consumption-focused self-expression WOM in hate brand communities.

Design/methodology/approach: Three brands are selected to be the focus of the study (Starbucks, Apple, and McDonald’s) and three online brand communities of such brands participate (three anti-brand communities or hate communities). The online questionnaire was spread in those communities and fulfilled by 350 members of three different brand communities.

All items of scales were evaluating using a Likert-type, of 1 (one) to 7 (seven) were: 1 – Strongly disagree; 2 – Mostly disagree; 3 – Somewhat disagree; 4 – Neither agree nor disagree; 5 – Somewhat agree; 6 – Mostly agree; 7 – Strongly agree. The questionnaire also contained socio-demographic variables and other variables to characterize the participants (number of hours, on average, spent on the internet per week; number of posts, on average, per week; on a scale from 0 (I hate t) to 10(I love it), what do you feel about the brand x?). In order to measure consumption-focused self-expression WOM, we employed six items adapted from Saenger et al. (2013) The dimensions for online brand community engagement were adapted from Baldus et al. (2015)

Fresults: Model 1 Model 2 Construct B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 2.594   Model 1 Model 2 Construct B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 2.594 0.326 -2.059 0.594 Helping 0.174 0.090 0.174* -0.039 0.078 -0.043 ns Like-minded discussion -0.483 0.072 -0.483*** -0.154 0.081 -0.193* Seeking Assistance -0.188 0.055 -0.188*** 0.064 0.050 0.070 ns Self-expression 0.525 0.077 0.525*** 0.041 0.071 0.035 ns Up-to-date information 0.168 0.053 0.168** 0.042 0.077 ns Validation 0.103 0.103 ns 0.000 0.000 ns Brand Influence 0.340 0.364*** Brand Aversion 0.734 0.075 0.447*** Connecting -0.228 0.100 -0.174** Rewards(hedonic) 0.216 0.051 0.243*** Rewards(utilitarian) 0.037 0.091** R2 0.26 0.55 Adjusted R2 0.25 0.54 ∆R2 0.29 ∆F 20.25*** 44.30*** Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting CSWOM t: hate brand communities Note. *p< .10, ** p< .05, ***p< .001, ns not significant

Findings; reveal the importance of Brand aversion, Brand influence and Rewards(hedonic) on the consumption-focused self-expression Word-of-mouth.

Some final thoughts Brand influence or the degree to which a community member wants to influence the brand is very important for the haters; they like to influence, be provocative and change brand behavior. This dimension is reinforced by brand aversion -meaning the opposite of being in love with a brand, disgust the brand or even hating it- and rewards(hedonic), representing the entertainments and fun that participants have posting comments and talking about the brand.

Those who hate the brand, want to influence it and feel emotional rewards hating the brand tend to be more active in writing comments about it. When members of hate brands Increase the strength of their connection with the brand, they tend to be less engaged in talking and write comments about the brand and their consumption activities. Like connecting, Like-minding discussion is another dimension negatively related with CSWOM, meaning that those who enjoy talking with others similar in the brand community does not tend to talk about their consumption activities.

Thank you!

H1 CSWOM Love H2 CSWOM Hate Positive engagement Negative engagement Brand Influence Brand Influence Brand Passion Brand Aversion Connecting Connecting Helping Helping H1 Like-minded discussion CSWOM Love Like-minded discussion Reward s(hedonic) Reward s(hedonic) H2 Rewards(utilitarian CSWOM Hate Rewards(utilitarian Seeking Assistance Seeking Assistance Self-expression Self-expression Up-to-date information Up-to-date information Validation Validation Positive engagement Negative engagement